High CourtsDivision Bench(1999) 02 MAD CK 0092

S.P. Natarajan and etc. vs Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Deptt. and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 12 February 1999 · Citation: AIR 1999 Mad 458

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Jain, Acting C.J. · K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No''s. 202 and 203 of 1999 and C.M.P. No. 2270 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 298 words

N.K. Jain, Ag. C.J.

1.

These two writ appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 14-10-1998 dismissing the Writ Petitions.

2.

The grievance of the petitioners is that they are registered class I contractors of Highways and Rural Works Department The pre-qualification conditions prescribed by the respondents for participating in the bid in respect of west coast road tender, viz., widening and strengthening the existing carriage way of west Coast Road to two lane including C.D. works from Kanyakumari District to Pazhaya Utchakadai are intended only to eliminate other contractors and grant the contract to their own party men and it is arbitrary.

3.

The learned single Judge on consideration, held that the said pre-qualifications have been introduced only in terms of Government Order in Ms. H.C No. 2086 dated 25-10-1989. Under the said Government order, where there is any work costing more than a crore of rupees, there should be a condition of pre-qualification in respect of contract and only on satisfying those pre-conditions, the contractor would be allowed to take part in the tender proceedings. The learned single Judge has also observed that the petitioners/ appellants have not registered their names in terms of an advertisement in the Indian Express and as such, they are not entitled to be considered to take part in the tender proceedings and as such, it cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Government. The learned single Judge thus dismissed the writ petitions.

4.

We have heard and perused the records. We find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge, so as to call for interference. The writ appeals are dismissed. CMP 2270/ 99 is also dismissed.